Human and Machine: How Software Engineers Perceive and Engage with AI-Assisted Code Reviews Compared to Their Peers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) continues to increase and evolve, including in software engineering (SE). This integration involves processes traditionally entrusted to humans, such as coding. However, the impact on socio-technical processes like code review remains underexplored. In this interview-based study (20 interviewees), we investigate how software engineers perceive and engage with Large Language Model (LLM)-assisted code reviews compared to human peer-led reviews. In this inherently human-centric process, we aim to understand how software engineers navigate the introduction of AI into collaborative workflows. We found that engagement in code review is multi-dimensional, spanning cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions. The introduction of LLM-assisted review impacts some of these attributes. For example, there is less need for emotional regulation and coping mechanisms when dealing with an LLM compared to peers. However, the cognitive load sometimes is higher in dealing with LLM-generated feedback due to its excessive details. Software engineers use a similar sense-making process to evaluate and adopt feedback suggestions from their peers and the LLM. However, the LLM feedback adoption is constrained by trust and lack of context in the review. Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of how AI tools are impacting SE socio-technical processes and provide insights into the future of AI-human collaboration in SE practices.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 3 Jan 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 5.
8 papers.
- 2025The Future of Generative AI in Software Engineering: A Vision from Industry and Academia in the European GENIUS Projectcited by 4
- 2025Novice Developers' Perspectives on Adopting LLMs for Software Development: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 3
- 2026Why Are Agentic Pull Requests Merged or Rejected? An Empirical Studycited by 3
- 2025Walking the Tightrope of LLMs for Software Development: A Practitioners' Perspectivecited by 2
- 2026The Perfection Paradox: From Architect to Curator in AI-Assisted API Designcited by 0
- 2026LLM-Powered Workflow Optimization for Multidisciplinary Software Development: An Automotive Industry Case Studycited by 0
- 2026Propose to Learn, Learn to Propose: Evaluability-Aware Assistance under Bounded Rationalitycited by 0
- 2026The Psychological Costs of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Software Engineeringcited by 0
- 2026The Psychological Costs of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Software Engineering3 Sep 2026
- 2026Propose to Learn, Learn to Propose: Evaluability-Aware Assistance under Bounded Rationality2 Sep 2026
- 2026Why Are Agentic Pull Requests Merged or Rejected? An Empirical Study21 May 2026
- 2026LLM-Powered Workflow Optimization for Multidisciplinary Software Development: An Automotive Industry Case Study22 Mar 2026
- 2026The Perfection Paradox: From Architect to Curator in AI-Assisted API Design12 Mar 2026
- 2025Walking the Tightrope of LLMs for Software Development: A Practitioners' Perspective9 Nov 2025
- 2025The Future of Generative AI in Software Engineering: A Vision from Industry and Academia in the European GENIUS Project3 Nov 2025
- 2025Novice Developers' Perspectives on Adopting LLMs for Software Development: A Systematic Literature Review10 Mar 2025